Ok so we just passed ‘Sherwood park’ in CT and my mom joked what if robin hood is in there. And I had a story idea kinda - what if places with names on common with stories/places in stories, contain somewhere in them, the world of the story? Like if you wander into the woods in that park what if you did wander unto the world of Robin hood and into the story? (Also if you wandered into the woods somewhere in Coventry, RI, and ended up in the world of the Disney Channel movie with Coventry and the twin girls with magic powers. Or i know of an underhill road, maybe a portal awaits there takes you to the world of the hobbit/lotr. Etc)
If you use Zoom, be aware that they’ve decided they’re going to use your input (from both free and paid accounts) to train their new AI tools. And there’s apparently no way to opt out of this. :/
The Environmental Protection Agency approved a component of boat fuel made from discarded plastic that the agency’s own risk formula determined was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer. Current and former EPA scientists said that threat level is unheard of. It is a million times higher than what the agency usually considers acceptable for new chemicals and six times worse than the risk of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking.
Federal law requires the EPA to conduct safety reviews before allowing new chemical products onto the market. If the agency finds that a substance causes unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the EPA is not allowed to approve it without first finding ways to reduce that risk.
But the agency did not do that in this case. Instead, the EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks and gave Chevron the go-ahead to make the new boat fuel ingredient at its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Though the substance can poison air and contaminate water, EPA officials mandated no remedies other than requiring workers to wear gloves, records show.
ProPublica and the Guardian in February reported on the risks of other new plastic-based Chevron fuels that were also approved under an EPA program that the agency had touted as a “climate-friendly” way to boost alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. That story was based on an EPA consent order, a legally binding document the agency issues to address risks to health or the environment. In the Chevron consent order, the highest noted risk came from a jet fuel that was expected to create air pollution so toxic that 1 out of 4 people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer.
In February, ProPublica and the Guardian asked the EPA for its scientists’ risk assessment, which underpinned the consent order. The agency declined to provide it, so ProPublica requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. The 203-page risk assessment revealed that, for the boat fuel ingredient, there was a far higher risk that was not in the consent order. EPA scientists included figures that made it possible for ProPublica to calculate the lifetime cancer risk from breathing air pollution that comes from a boat engine burning the fuel. That calculation, which was confirmed by the EPA, came out to 1.3 in 1, meaning every person exposed to it over the course of a full lifetime would be expected to get cancer.
Such risks are exceedingly unusual, according to Maria Doa, a scientist who worked at EPA for 30 years and once directed the division that managed the risks posed by chemicals. The EPA division that approves new chemicals usually limits lifetime cancer risk from an air pollutant to 1 additional case of cancer in a million people. That means that if a million people are continuously exposed over a presumed lifetime of 70 years, there would likely be at least one case of cancer on top of those from other risks people already face.
When Doa first saw the 1-in-4 cancer risk for the jet fuel, she thought it must have been a typo. The even higher cancer risk for the boat fuel component left her struggling for words. “I had never seen a 1-in-4 risk before this, let alone a 1.3-in-1,” said Doa. “This is ridiculously high.”
Another serious cancer risk associated with the boat fuel ingredient that was documented in the risk assessment was also missing from the consent order. For every 100 people who ate fish raised in water contaminated with that same product over a lifetime, seven would be expected to develop cancer — a risk that’s 70,000 times what the agency usually considers acceptable.
When asked why it didn’t include those sky-high risks in the consent order, the EPA acknowledged having made a mistake. This information “was inadvertently not included in the consent order,” an agency spokesperson said in an email.
Ok good news there’s already mounting political pressure. We just all have to write our senators and congressmen. If things start to loose momentum we will organize a protest outside of our politicians houses. This is a bridge too far if nothing is done
“Oh [other profession] wants better working conditions? WELL [MY profession] is HARDER I work TWENTY HOUR DAYS and I am NOT ALLOWED BREAKS and I’m PAID FOR SHIT and I have NO INSURANCE and I NEVER SEE MY CHILDREN so WHY are YOU COMPLAINING LOL”
have you considered that maybe YOUR job ALSO should not suck that much
Story time. This is not so much for OP but for anyone else who might not have union experience: Bear in mind that there is a strong propaganda effort to get people to this viewpoint. They’re not being willfully obtuse.
I spoke to a neighbour the other day. She’d just taken voluntary a lay-off from her factory job because she had an ongoing injury and they wouldn’t let her adjust her hours in a sensible way. She’d been struggling to make it work anyway but her back was getting really bad. So when they put the word out that they were looking for volunteers to take lay-offs, she put up her hand. Still, she was proud to tell me that she was considered one of their best and fastest workers, even with the injury. She was frustrated that one of the newer workers seemed to have gotten various accommodations, even though that worker was nowhere near as good.
I could tell that she’d been having similar conversations with her coworkers on the factory floor for years. Who got extras they didn’t “deserve.” Who was a shoddy worker and made life harder for everyone. Who came in to work even though their parent had just died to make sure that nobody had to pick up their slack. And all of that pervaded with propaganda about “greedy unions” who slim down your already-skinny paycheque just because they’re all lazy slackers who don’t want to pull their weight and don’t appreciate the nice boss for hiring them. (This is the same across all types of jobs. Next story time I’ll talk about two university profs who grew to fame and fortune via unions and the social safety net and yet both engaged in union busting.)
My neighbour’s injury, incidentally, was a result of her work at the factory, but she didn’t want to try for compensation or anything else. She’d “never taken a single sick day in 20 years” and wasn’t “the kind of person who made waves” so she was just going the regular unemployment route but finding the systems obscure and challenging. She was hurt and shocked that her old employer would treat one of their best workers this way and leave them to deal with the fall-out by themselves.
Meanwhile, Canadian (federal) government workers were striking in Ottawa. And she expressed frustration that they felt “entitled to strike” when the (provincial) services she was accessing were so shoddy and difficult to navigate. Why did they “get to” strike if their work was apparently so poor? She had no sympathy for them.
I pushed back gently. Her factory floor job wasn’t union, but the admin staff was union. They seemed to get a better deal. We spoke about strength in numbers, and how hard it is to try and get your due from your employer without anyone to help you. And how they make all these forms complicated on purpose so it’s easier to deny you money or other support. And how it would be great to have someone to go to meetings with you, who knew all the legal stuff, and who could help you with the forms, and get you the money for the medical services you needed.
She wasn’t pro-union by the time I left, but we’d agreed on a few things, and I’d framed a few of her concerns in a way that made her more ambivalent about strikes (rather than outright hostile). Still, as we were saying our goodbyes, she said, “let’s hope they hurry up and get back to work eh!”
Because imagine what it would cost her to turn around and agree that unions are good, and strikes are good, and you should fight your employer for your fair compensation and your rights. Twenty years of taking no sick leave, working herself to the bone on not enough money, laid off and struggling with the system for basic support. She’s proud of her suffering, all the times she didn’t complain, all the times she pushed on even as the going got harder and harder.
Because if she can’t be proud of it… then what? She’s dumb for taking a non-union job? She should’ve organised and could’ve had better pay and a severance package and free physiotherapy for life? If she accepts that unions and strikes are good, she’s still in pain, still unemployed, still stuck with her lack of support, but now also feels like a fucking idiot for giving 20 years of her life to a boss who threw her out without a second thought.
So. Don’t put up with union busting and do talk to the people in your life about solidarity, but do realise that being anti-union isn’t just folks being aggressively wrong for the sake of it. They’ve been lied to. And they possibly have a lot of complex grief and identity and other experiences tied up in this.
“If she accepts that unions and strikes are good, she’s still in pain, still unemployed, still stuck with her lack of support, but now also feels like a fucking idiot for giving 20 years of her life to a boss who threw her out without a second thought.”
This.
And this applies to a lot of other things you might want people to change their minds about.
Hey, @the-rain-on-your-dandelions, has anyone told you that you’re a genius? That’s an incredible system. I wish I had a friend group that could function for!
I could see this working for dinners, too
it’s like the Mom Friend Anxiety Hack, but for chores.
this is how a society is supposed to function. this is the norm we’ve all forgotten
part of being an ally to trans men is not being a dick to cis men for their appearance btw
the short trans men hear you. the trans men with bottom growth—or who are post-phalloplasty—hear your bad jokes about small dicks. the trans men undergoing hrt who are losing their hair hear you talk shit about bald spots.
also, hot take, you should care about not hurting random cis men in addition to not hurting trans men. like just because some guy is being an asshole online doesn’t mean the thousands of young boys reading your comments about someone with their same acne deserved it. i don’t care what your reason is, even if you think someone is bad enough to warrant being bullied, who gave you permission to hurt the innocent bystander?
hey y’all should spread this version bc some people need to hear this context
If you want to keep up to date and help pay their fines, Food Not Bombs Houston keeps their instagram current with what is happening and how you can help!
First tickets dismissed because the police didn’t bother showing up to the courthouse. Donate anyway, because Houston’s mayor is going to refile.
While it’s true that for some people, (certain) stims are an easy way to observe distress, I think there needs to be more awareness in allistic people that a lot of autistic people just stim for the sake of it, simply because were understimulated and / or we just dont control our bodies movements.
I’ve been repeatedly asked if I’m fine by so called mental health professionals for rocking etc, who know I’m autistic. The immediate assumption is this is a sign of distress instead of my natural body language / movement. Less assuming, when you know someone and their stims well you might be able to tell that x stim means x emotion or situation, but for the rest of us, just maybe, dont? It’s also just a bunch of stigma surrounding certain stims, because if I had been tapping my fingers etc i wouldn’t have been assumed in distress. It’s not my fault my body likes to rock.
I’m like if a chivalrous knight kissed a fair maiden’s hand and said “my lady, I fight for you” and then walked off and immediately tripped over his own armor and fell on the ground
Lemme tell you how I scammed Columbia House Record Club out of hundreds, possibly thousands of dollars in the late 1970s.
See, these ads up there were in every magazine. The idea was you’d clip out the ad and check off 13 popular records/tapes from the available list (and YES they were real albums from popular groups, not weird shitty music nobody had ever heard of) stuff your order in an envelope along with $1, mail it in, and BOOM: 4 to 6 weeks later a USPS box would arrive with your music! Thirteen albums! All yours, no strings attached.
Oh wait. One string.
Well, a dozen strings.
Because as part of the membership you agreed to buy 12 albums over the course of the next year at “regular club prices” plus shipping. And “regular club pricing” was full-on retail, plus 86 cents per album for shipping. So: $8.99 + .86 per purchase x 12 = $118.20
Or about $500 bucks in 2022 dollars.
So every month you’d get the “club magazine” sent to your mailbox – basically a catalog of albums you could buy – and you’d either select an album a month for full price, or not find anything you wanted and put off the purchase until next month. Which… do that a few times and all of a sudden you’re looking at a backlog of unbought commitments that rack up fast.
Yeah. It was a bit of a trap.
But there was a stupidly easy way out, and it started with the initial “13 albums for $1″ deal. See, what you could do (but nobody ever said out loud) was this: select only ONE album, and start your membership that way. Send in your selected ONE album + $1 and in 4 to 6 weeks you’d get in the mail–
–a package containing your ONE album, plus 12 vouchers for one album each, for the albums you neglected to select. Literally 12 coupons entitling you to a free album.
Next step: you cancel your membership. Return the album (but not the vouchers) with a letter saying YOU SUCK THIS WAS A MISTAKE I HATE YOU I WANT OUT FUCK OFF
And since you returned the merchandise they’d release you from your membership and everything’s groovy. No harm, no foul.
Wait a week.
Then, you sign up AGAIN for the same “13 albums for $1″ deal. But this time you select 13 albums, and 4 to 6 weeks later you get your package with 13 records/tapes. Now you have one year to buy 12 albums for “full price”.
Which you satisfy by using the 12 vouchers you got from the FIRST membership. So 4 to 6 weeks after THAT you get a dozen MORE records, this time for free. And since you’ve completed your membership requirements you can quit at any time just by checking a box on a form. Which you do, because fuck Columbia House.
I did this at least four times between 1979 and 1981 and they never caught on.
My record/tape collection was massive and I think I paid maybe $5 total.
